If you re-read your last sentence it should be clear why this law is being pushed.
Joel Send a noteboard - 20/01/2012 09:12:29 PM
Again I am reminded of Wikileaks obtaining Pentagon lists of Al Qaeda informants in Pakistan, which they then posted on their site.
i don't know why you keep trying to bring this back to issues of national security like a broken record. It's apples and oranges. Those new laws are not even concerned with shutting down websites that leaks state secrets. You're the only one who misinterpret them this way. The media in and out ofyour country are not even mentionning any national security angle - its laws catering to demands made by Hollywood and the veideogame industry.
Yeah, existing civil law worked SO well then. Personally, giving the government authority to block Wikileaks in the wake of something like that seems reasonable to me; it is just too bad they could not block it globally.
The issue is primarly one of extradition, not of not having a legal framework already in place to charge Assange criminally in a US court..
Shutting down Wikileaks was useless, hundred of sites would have picked their stuff up as soon as it was done. It's not because the US government could't shut it down.
Yes, the problematic nature of extradition is why the new laws would grant the power to shut down access to foreign piracy sites, because extradicting their operators is often difficult or impossible. If the feds had shut down Wikileaks and other sites redistributed the posted data they could be shut down just as easily. Though, correct me if I am wrong, but the new laws would grant any authority to shut down those whose registry is in the US anyway, only those with foreign registry. Seems like there is a fairly simple built in workaround.
We had this one hour radio show discussing the topic two days ago, with guest American legal experts on it (plus one specialist of American politics). They specifically discussed the angle of "national security" as the host brought it up (he asked specifically if the US government could invoke these laws to censor sites like Wikileaks last year, if it provided the US with new legal tools to deal with cyber-terror or other cyber-threats to national security). The experts all agree: that's totally outside the scope of those laws, and they also agreed those laws don't touch on matters of national security at all. Those new laws as they stood were designed specically to adress piracy and breaches of commercial and corporate copyrights in answer to the demands of Hollywood (that financed Obama's campaign) and the videogame industry. One of the lawyers said fears your governement could use PIPA or SOPA to deal with sites like Wikileaks were unfounded (what Wikileaks published isn't even copyrighted or proprietary material). Under PIPA/SOPA, they can't "close down a foreign website" anyway. All they can do is make its DNS unreachable directely. It would be a child's game to reach the site nonetheless (you just need to know it's IP address which would become widely known very rapidly), it just wouldn't show up anymore in search tools like Google and company. The US don't have the technical means to totally shut down a site like Wikileaks outside the US, and SOPA/PIPA don't give it those means.
Beside, the felony in Wikileaks' case was committed by the American guy who leaked the material, not by Wikileaks, a foreign site with foreign proprietors, that bought and published it, nor the worldwide media that relayed the information from Wikileaks (including the New York Times, officially a media partner of Wikileaks, that wasn't charged with anything....). If the US prosecutors thought they had grounds to charge Assange with anything, they would have tried to get him extradited (which could have been complicated, given a great deal countries including your closest allies won't extradite anyone to the US if he faces the death penalty, and I'm pretty sure it includes Australia) but it appears Assange hasn't broken any American law anyway.
Disclosing the identify of US intelligence assets violates US criminal law (ask Scooter Libby.) So does WITHHOLDING the identity of anyone who revealed them to you (ask Robert Novak.)
However, that extradicting people even for crimes THAT serious ranges from difficult to impossible is a primary reason the new legislation seeks to block access to their sites. In the case of DoD data, it is not copyrighted or commercial property, but is not public domain either: Access to it is restricted, and publicly posting it is a crime, just not a commercial violation of civil codes (so far as I know.) The same principle applies though: Since preventing people illegally obtaining and distributing the data is impossible, the new law seeks to do the next best thing by blocking access to it. Within the US. On foreign registered sites. From what I have been able to sort out amid the biased views on both sides of the issue, it does not appear sites registered in the US would even be affected by the proposed legislation (they are of course already bound by existing laws on domestic sites, but those laws have no, or practically no, effect on foreign sites, hence the new legislation.)
Meh, and again I say, "meh." Rioting has given way to dancing in the estreets with the announcement the bills have been pulled, but since the general public will not maintain their focus and interest in coming months like Big Media will, the bills will return and pass in some form. If nothing else, that was guaranteed after the DoJs shutdown of Megauploads under CURRENT law prompted "Anonymous" to launch successful Denial of Service attacks against:
1) The MPAA,
2) The RIAA,
3) The White House,
4) The FBI and
5) The US Department of Justice.
Way to convince the federal government no growing internet problems justify legislatively assuming greater authority and oversight of it.
"Mr. President, North Korean troops just occupied Seoul, what should we do?!"
"Anonymous just knocked out our servers again because they cannot watch the latest Dr. Who episodes, so I guess nothing."
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
English Wikipedia Anti-SOPA Blackout
17/01/2012 08:31:46 AM
- 2101 Views
Yeah, man, because currently copyright holders have no recourse, am I right?
17/01/2012 11:47:35 AM
- 935 Views
"altering the infrastructure of the Internet so as to render RAFO virtually inaccessible"?
17/01/2012 08:12:27 PM
- 1038 Views
I'll go ahead and ask before I get my panties in a bunch: do you understand these bills?
17/01/2012 09:09:22 PM
- 1130 Views
I admit I have not looked into it much
17/01/2012 11:42:30 PM
- 986 Views
And yet you're still arguing the matter.
18/01/2012 02:34:04 AM
- 1090 Views
I love you. *NM*
18/01/2012 03:41:03 AM
- 631 Views
heh, thanks. I usually find myself pushing minority opinions. Nice to be "appreciated" for once. *NM*
18/01/2012 04:01:10 AM
- 618 Views
Can i second the adulation?
18/01/2012 04:07:17 AM
- 821 Views
I too (three?) appreciate the common sense and reasonable explanations. *NM*
18/01/2012 04:12:59 AM
- 616 Views
Right, because the argument is not just over THIS bill but, apparently, over ANY bill.
18/01/2012 11:09:13 AM
- 987 Views
Alternatives to SOPA/PIPA have been proposed for months now. Please stop arguing this.
18/01/2012 05:42:10 PM
- 940 Views
Also, in the case of the OPEN Act, it has not "been proposed for months."
18/01/2012 07:28:15 PM
- 1406 Views
"sensitive federal content"? Provide a source justifying this claim and it's relevance, please.
18/01/2012 05:59:47 PM
- 1005 Views
I would not have thought a source necessary.
18/01/2012 06:24:44 PM
- 1000 Views
Okay, I'm with Aemon now.
18/01/2012 07:36:21 PM
- 1013 Views
OK.
18/01/2012 10:16:16 PM
- 1036 Views
should be interesting
17/01/2012 12:41:47 PM
- 859 Views
Could be; depends on a lot of factors.
17/01/2012 07:38:55 PM
- 927 Views
See, that's one of the biggest problems that people aren't understanding.
17/01/2012 09:31:38 PM
- 945 Views
So tell them that.
17/01/2012 11:54:19 PM
- 1090 Views
Joel, I think I'm done with this unless you want to do some research.
18/01/2012 02:53:19 AM
- 892 Views
Research would tell me what is wrong with these bills and how a good bill should look.
18/01/2012 11:22:46 AM
- 1009 Views
Could've done without the snide rejoinder, but, good.
17/01/2012 02:20:08 PM
- 864 Views
I love the black banner, like some kind of internet Holocaust.
17/01/2012 08:03:27 PM
- 1003 Views
Are you aware that SOPA/PIPA has nothing to do with hackers and everything to do with copyright?
18/01/2012 02:08:56 AM
- 845 Views
There seems to be some overlap.
18/01/2012 01:08:22 PM
- 968 Views
Re: There seems to be some overlap.
18/01/2012 08:13:15 PM
- 839 Views
Re: There still seems to be some overlap.
18/01/2012 10:27:32 PM
- 1104 Views
Re: There still seems to be some overlap.
18/01/2012 11:30:39 PM
- 959 Views
Just because the news does not mention something does not automatically make it non-applicable.
19/01/2012 04:08:58 PM
- 972 Views
Re: Just because the news does not mention something does not automatically make it non-applicable.
19/01/2012 10:39:40 PM
- 959 Views
If you re-read your last sentence it should be clear why this law is being pushed.
20/01/2012 09:12:29 PM
- 1241 Views
Re: If you re-read your last sentence it should be clear why this law is being pushed.
21/01/2012 03:19:49 AM
- 866 Views
Er, what Ghav said.
18/01/2012 02:30:37 AM
- 869 Views
Sorry, protecting Pirate Bay and offshore gambling are not compelling counterarguments.
18/01/2012 11:38:08 AM
- 911 Views
Okay, another analogy:
18/01/2012 02:04:12 PM
- 896 Views
The devil is always in the details, and it seems clear the details need great revision.
18/01/2012 03:31:20 PM
- 901 Views
what they SHOULD do is stop taking money from proponents of sopa/pipa
18/01/2012 03:51:09 PM
- 1015 Views
Yes, they should, but, once again, that approach will not prevent a new law.
18/01/2012 04:05:02 PM
- 989 Views
Re: The devil is always in the details, and it seems clear the details need great revision.
18/01/2012 04:27:30 PM
- 940 Views
If the US government wants to summarily block sites within the US, it already can and will.
18/01/2012 06:15:53 PM
- 891 Views
You know all this anti-SOPA bullshit is making me hope the bill passes.
18/01/2012 04:00:17 AM
- 956 Views
I would not go THAT far; it seems clear these bills have many objectionable provisions.
18/01/2012 11:41:23 AM
- 981 Views
Re: I would not go THAT far; it seems clear these bills have many objectionable provisions.
19/01/2012 01:57:46 AM
- 804 Views
Yeah, the extreme bias on both sides is why the bills will likely pass more or less as written.
19/01/2012 03:31:52 PM
- 988 Views
joel, you need to consider three things
18/01/2012 06:06:16 AM
- 950 Views
You need to consider that they WILL pass some legislation, and what you want it to contain.
18/01/2012 12:15:38 PM
- 998 Views
again, it's not about piracy, it's about protecting the mpaa/riaa business model at our expense
18/01/2012 03:34:32 PM
- 1072 Views
Yeah, see, that is the problem: "it's not about piracy."
18/01/2012 03:57:55 PM
- 910 Views
if piracy is such a problem then the mpaa/riaa need to PROVE their losses
19/01/2012 02:43:31 AM
- 930 Views
How do you expect anyone to prove what people WOULD HAVE bought if they could not just take it?
19/01/2012 03:57:24 PM
- 1214 Views
A technical examination of SOPA and PROTECT IP
18/01/2012 08:32:44 AM
- 875 Views
"As a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, I'm a sysadmin."
18/01/2012 12:47:16 PM
- 1134 Views
Wikipedia has already convinced me
18/01/2012 03:26:01 PM
- 755 Views
Trying to stop this legislation without proposing an alternative is trying to stop ANY legislation.
18/01/2012 03:44:18 PM
- 980 Views
It isn't their job to propose legislation
18/01/2012 04:12:53 PM
- 900 Views
No, but they have as much RIGHT to do so as anyone else.
18/01/2012 05:31:55 PM
- 878 Views
Strike three.
18/01/2012 05:37:55 PM
- 937 Views
That is fine; that is what people SHOULD be doing.
18/01/2012 06:03:59 PM
- 753 Views
Things being better now than they would be under SOPA seems like a legitimate argument to me
18/01/2012 09:04:18 PM
- 1016 Views
Against SOPA, sure; against ANY new law, no.
18/01/2012 10:46:48 PM
- 859 Views
About "proposing new legislation"
18/01/2012 04:45:08 PM
- 1014 Views
So true
18/01/2012 05:08:45 PM
- 953 Views
Re: About "proposing new legislation"
18/01/2012 05:59:55 PM
- 1091 Views
Hm, you should read my post one above about combatting online piracy.
18/01/2012 06:20:16 PM
- 1044 Views
I would not recommend photocopying a book and handing it out on street corners.
18/01/2012 06:45:52 PM
- 963 Views
Not to blame, neccessarily. But you have to live in the real world.
18/01/2012 07:31:18 PM
- 884 Views
Re: Not to blame, neccessarily. But you have to live in the real world.
18/01/2012 08:55:59 PM
- 973 Views
I always liked the codewheels SSI provided with copies of their Gold Box AD&D games.
18/01/2012 10:07:40 PM
- 1095 Views
These are really different arguments
19/01/2012 12:05:10 AM
- 865 Views
TV is slightly different, because regional availability becomes a factor.
19/01/2012 04:18:58 PM
- 858 Views
Yeah, so I use Russian wikipedia for a day. Or German wikipedia, or French, or Italian... *NM*
18/01/2012 06:23:36 PM
- 669 Views
Or just hit stop right before the script runs. *NM*
18/01/2012 06:52:40 PM
- 653 Views
Or just disable Java. *NM*
19/01/2012 01:58:03 AM
- 515 Views
That's not as much fun though. *NM*
19/01/2012 02:13:44 AM
- 643 Views
Exactly, this way its kind of a game. *NM*
19/01/2012 02:20:37 AM
- 457 Views
I really don't see the fun in that. Wikipedia is just a tool, not a game. *NM*
19/01/2012 04:59:14 AM
- 560 Views
I don't know about those (except French), but none of the ones I ever used are remotely as good. *NM*
18/01/2012 08:13:47 PM
- 644 Views
Russian wikipedia is very good if you're not checking some obscure Western cultural phenomena.
19/01/2012 01:57:43 AM
- 1039 Views
Or Answers.com, or even the actual sources that are often copy/pasted into Wikipedia...
19/01/2012 01:07:38 AM
- 1002 Views
Re: Or Answers.com, or even the actual sources that are often copy/pasted into Wikipedia... *NM*
19/01/2012 01:34:46 AM
- 690 Views
Oh, no; now Congress will be inundated with complaints from lazy college students!
19/01/2012 04:40:12 PM
- 1024 Views
13 previously unopposed senators now do not support SOPA.
19/01/2012 11:36:15 PM
- 986 Views
How does that "rebutt" what was a facetious post in the first place?
20/01/2012 09:24:27 PM
- 1086 Views